Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live

StANDAA

Legend
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
 
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
On clay, I agree.
Overall,nope
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Because he's got nothing else to prove, go home
Marriage life can be, sometimes, monotonous.
They seek to satisfy that need with the adrenaline and the adulation they receive all over the world from the fans.
This is why Federer will play Tokio 2020.
They will always seek to challenge and conquer new obstacles.
Nothing wrong with that!
:D
 

Sport

Legend
Marriage life can be, sometimes, monotonous.
They seek to satisfy that need with the adrenaline and the adulation they receive all over the world from the fans.
This is why Federer will play Tokio 2020.
They will always seek to challenge and conquer new obstacles.
Nothing wrong with that!
:D
Married or not married the Big 3 will miss playing tennis when they are retired.
 

ron schaap

Professional
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
Not only his successes are huge, but how did he manage to stay so modest?
There is an American next gen , who isnt even top 10 who every time rips his own shirt when he wins to show his muscles. Or the oncourt bad behaviour of Kyrgios.. :( :(
Then the attitude of football players, i mean the European football players who think they are rockstars with all their stupid tattoos all over their bodies. .
 

King No1e

Legend
Federer is better than Nadal on clay. It's not even close, just look at how he effortlessly bageled Rafa at Hamburg 07. But these Vаmos Brigade fanatics really think Nadal is better ROFLMAO
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
Not only his successes are huge, but how did he manage to stay so modest?
There is an American next gen , who isnt even top 10 who every time rips his own shirt when he wins to show his muscles. Or the oncourt bad behaviour of Kyrgios.. :( :(
Then the attitude of football players, i mean the European football players who think they are rockstars with all their stupid tattoos all over their bodies. .
how did he get away with cheating so much?
 
Top